Cause of science and what not... New Study: ’2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever’– Many bad weather events at ‘historically low levels’

'Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.'

This clearly a piece of right-wing propaganda. Everyone knows that global warming is going to destroy the planet any day now. If you deny that you are a terrorist and the equivalent of a holocaust denier.

This clearly a piece of right-wing propaganda. Everyone knows that global warming is going to destroy the planet any day now. If you deny that you are a terrorist and the equivalent of a holocaust denier.

It's not "global warming," it's "climate change."

This year the climate was changed to be somewhat mild, but that doesn't change the fact that the climate has (and will continue to be) changed due to man-made causes.

That's what you RWNJ don't get. ANY climate is part of climate change, which only an idiot would claim isn't caused by our abuse of fossil fuels

You must be a RWNJ...every scientist already knows it's true. You even proved it yourself it in your original post--"historically low levels." If that's not climate CHANGE in your tea bagging fantasy world, then I don't know what to tell you. Climate has changed (you started the thread about it...) and man continues to use fossil fuels. Only an idiot neo-con tea bagger would be hit with that kind of evidence and still ask someone to "prove it."

You must be a RWNJ...every scientist already knows it's true. You even proved it yourself it in your original post--"historically low levels." If that's not climate CHANGE in your tea bagging fantasy world, then I don't know what to tell you. Climate has changed (you started the thread about it...) and man continues to use fossil fuels. Only an idiot neo-con tea bagger would be hit with that kind of evidence and still ask someone to "prove it."

Maybe Jesus will ride in on a stegosaurus and tell you himself?

So, before, the extreme weather was caused by global warming. Now, non-extreme weather is being caused by it too. Except now it's called "climate change" so it no longer matters if the planet is getting hotter or colder. The story just keeps on changing based on what the weather is doing or not doing. Convenient.

Where is the hard evidence that man can have any measurable impact on the Earth's temperature good or bad?

You see, there's this big thing in the sky called the sun and I think that it has a bigger say in the Earth's temperature than we do. The climate has been"changing" for billions of years. It's cyclical, since before human beings existed. Global warming, or what ever people are calling it this week, is a fucking scam. A phony boogeyman designed to scare people into accepting taxes and regulations that they would not ordinarily accept. It's an Anti-capitalist, wealth redistributing, scam.

You must be a RWNJ...every scientist already knows it's true. You even proved it yourself it in your original post--"historically low levels." If that's not climate CHANGE in your tea bagging fantasy world, then I don't know what to tell you. Climate has changed (you started the thread about it...) and man continues to use fossil fuels. Only an idiot neo-con tea bagger would be hit with that kind of evidence and still ask someone to "prove it."

Maybe Jesus will ride in on a stegosaurus and tell you himself?

"Every" scientist does not know it's true.

When asked to prove climate change is being caused by human beings' use of fossil fuel you also offer the following, in addition to your "every scientist" comment:

I'm afraid that kind of reasoning fails at the level of elementary logic.

not really when you consider science. We know the variables that account for climate change, we have accurate data on variables like sun spots/radiation etc. Increases in CO2 are at the peak in history, with the other variables offering no predictive validity due to stagnation it's safe to assume the CO2 is the cause. Hence, the prevailing hypothesis. Then they used computer models (chaos theory is important here) to manipulate the variables with there known mechanisms and it appears the etiology is excessive greenhouse gases.

I can fill the thread with citations if you would like. However, I feel you were more or less stating that his conclusion in this context was spurious.

not really when you consider science. We know the variables that account for climate change, we have accurate data on variables like sun spots/radiation etc. Increases in CO2 are at the peak in history, with the other variables offering no predictive validity due to stagnation it's safe to assume the CO2 is the cause. Hence, the prevailing hypothesis. Then they used computer models (chaos theory is important here) to manipulate the variables with there known mechanisms and it appears the etiology is excessive greenhouse gases.

I can fill the thread with citations if you would like. However, I feel you were more or less stating that his conclusion in this context was spurious.

Climate Change is another leftist invention that is based on sheer propaganda and a desire to tax the life out of everyone.

Al Doggity said "global warming" and "climate change" are not the same thing.

They aren't the same thing, one encompasses the other so it's technically not correct. One is more accurate as climate isn't as basic as hot everywhere, different things such as weather patterns, desalination of the water changing currents, destabilized el nino/nina etc

They aren't the same thing, one encompasses the other so it's technically not correct. One is more accurate as climate isn't as basic as hot everywhere, different things such as weather patterns, desalination of the water changing currents, destabilized el nino/nina etc

If that's true then "global warming" is synonymous with "climate change." Sounds like a rebranding attempt, like calling abortion "reproductive healthcare."

it's like saying because handjobs are often part of sexual intercourse then "handjobs" is synonymous with "coitus".

encompassing something doesn't make it synomymous, it doesn't have the same meaning.

or how about seasoning your food? is cooking and seasoning synonymous? one encompasses the other.

Regardless it's obvious you don't know much about the topic at hand. The issue is settled, the earth is heating up at record pace, why? well 95% of the scientists on earth from every country think it's man made since the models used with other variables failed to predict the changes (predictive validity is important) while massive influx of CO2 is quite accurate and accounts for the eclectic data which is impressive.

This argument is silly anyway, even if I grant that the terminology used by lay people is incorrect it has no bearing on the current issue.

A lot of repubs and dems have gotten on (then off) the climate change/manmade global warming train in the past few years.

it's not even a lib issue anymore, to be honest. Al Gore sold that bullshit, but every candidate in the 2008 and 2012 election bought into that shit.

it goes beyond party.

republican wins in 2016, climate change will become a huge issue again.

the only reason its not now is because the Obama administration isn't doing anything more than the Bush administration did. so now no one talks about it in mainstream media. because it would open the Obama admininstration up to criticism. and no one wants to do that. because everyone hugs his nuts.

it's like saying because handjobs are often part of sexual intercourse then "handjobs" is synonymous with "coitus".

encompassing something doesn't make it synomymous, it doesn't have the same meaning.

or how about seasoning your food? is cooking and seasoning synonymous? one encompasses the other.

Regardless it's obvious you don't know much about the topic at hand. The issue is settled, the earth is heating up at record pace, why? well 95% of the scientists on earth from every country think it's man made since the models used with other variables failed to predict the changes (predictive validity is important) while massive influx of CO2 is quite accurate and accounts for the eclectic data which is impressive.

This argument is silly anyway, even if I grant that the terminology used by lay people is incorrect it has no bearing on the current issue.

A better analogy is sports encompasses basketball and football, so basketball and football are synonymous with sports.

But you don’t know anything about sports, so that’s probably a bad example too.